• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Rugby Analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well either way I'm not interested in doing he ssaid she said on this. Also Manx kindly tell the Irish that the AB try in the dying seconds of their game was so late it didn't count. The AB strength is they play the full 80. England did the same and so should be given the same credit. We have been giving NZ as much trouble and probably more than any other team in the world has managed for the last 2 years.
 
Joe Goodman said:
Like the vids. Great work. Check out www.youtube.com/orokosports to see what I do. Weedit vids like this for students to learn from. A great coaching tool. Linked to this vid, analyse Wasps some time, they use a back 6!!!
Click to expand...

Joe, those try analysis videos are excellent, like the illustrations of the mans decision making, the y-line and ball transfer and visual analysis detail is brilliant.
 
ragerancher said:
Well either way I'm not interested in doing he ssaid she said on this. Also Manx kindly tell the Irish that the AB try in the dying seconds of their game was so late it didn't count. The AB strength is they play the full 80. England did the same and so should be given the same credit. We have been giving NZ as much trouble and probably more than any other team in the world has managed for the last 2 years.
Click to expand...

you don't have to go all the way back to 2013 for an example of a game-winning try, there are fresher ones from 2014 you know ! :D

And nobody here's questioning England's quality and how they've managed to push the All-Blacks, Mony Tanks is simply (and justly) making the point that England haven't shown great finishing. It's not like one bargains insidiously when one says there's Yarde's try, Brown's we'll let it go although it had its dirt and then the last one is the consolation try for a team that never dropped anything, but that couldn't win the game either. Those are just objective facts, they're not part of a malicious agenda or wtvr. They are realities of this series, along with no try scored in the first game (yes I know lots of guys missing) which do entail a certain conclusion. One you're having one hell of a hard time admitting my little man ! ;)

I don't wish it upon England. You can't get the old "boohoo everybody hates us" card out because this isn't what this is. But when you say "we have still scored a fair few tries against NZ so far this test, which says quite a lot I think.", you're entirely wrong. England may very well get to the point where they finish plays, but right now certainly ain't that time and '3 tries scored' or the scoreline '28-27' aren't telling at all, in fact.
 
Big Ewis said:
you don't have to go all the way back to 2013 for an example of a game-winning try, there are fresher ones from 2014 you know ! :D

And nobody here's questioning England's quality and how they've managed to push the All-Blacks, Mony Tanks is simply (and justly) making the point that England haven't shown great finishing. It's not like one bargains insidiously when one says there's Yarde's try, Brown's we'll let it go although it had its dirt and then the last one is the consolation try for a team that never dropped anything, but that couldn't win the game either. Those are just objective facts, they're not part of a malicious agenda or wtvr. They are realities of this series, along with no try scored in the first game (yes I know lots of guys missing) which do entail a certain conclusion. One you're having one hell of a hard time admitting my little man ! ;)

I don't wish it upon England. You can't get the old "boohoo everybody hates us" card out because this isn't what this is. But when you say "we have still scored a fair few tries against NZ so far this test, which says quite a lot I think.", you're entirely wrong. England may very well get to the point where they finish plays, but right now certainly ain't that time and '3 tries scored' or the scoreline '28-27' aren't telling at all, in fact.
Click to expand...

I think you need to define "attacking".

Because the ultimate goal of a sides attack is to score tries.

That is surely how they are judged?

So there are two questions really:

Do England play with intent, and are capable of backing that intent up?

Do they finish opportunities?

I'd say yes to the first one, and sometimes to the second... They surely waste more than they put away. But 6nations England were pretty good against similar level opposition.

They are making pour decisions here but that's probably down to a number of things not least the AB's defence.
 
In my opinion, England were lucky to get the last try because they made a mistake with a loose pass which drew in several New Zealand players which in turn created the overlap.
 
goodNumber10 said:
Do England play with intent, and are capable of backing that intent up?

Do they finish opportunities?

I'd say yes to the first one, and sometimes to the second...
Click to expand...

If you have good memory of the 6N, in all of England's games they'd had strong opportunities where they fail to deliver the punch for 5 points:
- Against France they managed a score I have no clue how Mike Brown got it over 4 Frenchmen, and the second try was nice. 2 tries
- Against Scotland they dominated big time but only managed a couple of tries, one off the lineout, easiest try they got all tournaments. 2 tries
- Against Ireland, they get 1 try.
- Against Wales, again, they widely dominated their opponents and had lots of chances but. 2 tries (one of which was that Danny Care bastardly sneaky thing)

Now, against Italy, there's not much to take away from that at all. The only thing we know, is that Italy degraded progressively throughout the tournament. Good, quite good in Cardiff. Mediocre in France. Alright vs Scotland. Bad in Ireland. And "we just took 50 at home" bad vs England. That's worthy of being thrown out of the 6N, taking 50 at home+wooden spoon. Tier 2 shiit right there.

And right now, the case explained above of 'England in NZ continuing to struggle finishing off plays'. Of course, it's no easy task to score over there, but the examples have been legion in these past two tests, and England really could've done better easily. They tend to rush it, or flatout make the wrong decision.

I'd say the overall report for 2014 isn't fantastic. And I say it's clearly their Achilles' Heel still atm.

That is all.
 
Last edited:
Big Ewis said:
If you have good memory of the 6N, in all of England's games they'd had strong opportunities where they fail to deliver the punch for 5 points:
- Against France they managed a score I have no clue how Mike Brown got it over 4 Frenchmen, and the second try was nice. 2 tries
- Against Scotland they dominated big time but only managed a couple of tries, one off the lineout, easiest try they got all tournaments. 2 tries
- Against Ireland, they get 1 try.
- Against Wales, again, they widely dominated their opponents and had lots of chances but. 2 tries (one of which was that Danny Care bastardly sneaky thing)

Now, against Italy, there's not much to take away from that at all. The only thing we know, is that Italy degraded progressively throughout the tournament. Good, quite good in Cardiff. Mediocre in France. Alright vs Scotland. Bad in Ireland. And "we just took 50 at home" bad vs England. That's worthy of being thrown out of the 6N, taking 50 at home+wooden spoon. Tier 2 shiit right there.

And right now, the case explained above of 'England in NZ continuing to struggle finishing off plays'. Of course, it's no easy task to score over there, but the examples have been legion in these past two tests, and England really could've done better easily. They tend to rush it, or flatout make the wrong decision.

I'd say the overall report for 2014 isn't fantastic. And I say it's clearly their Achilles' Heel still atm.

That is all.
Click to expand...

We scored 2 less tries than Ireland, who faced possibly the most pathetic Welsh performance of the year prior to the SA game. Realistically only the Scotland game was a big disappointment for England, which sort of forgets the frankly embarrasing state of the Murrayfield pitch. You are getting in the habit of "well we will discount this try here and that one doesn't really count, I've also decided this one isn't much good, oh look England can't score tries!" If you think 16 tries is proof of a fine attacking side but 14 is proof of a completely dysfunctional attacking side then you have a weird criteria. Yes England can't finish that well but the reason this has become so apparent is because England are now producing more opportunities than they have ever done in recent history. If our finishing is as dysfunctional as you claim then what does it say about the number of opportunities we must be creating if we got within 2 tries of Ireland? You can't have it both ways, either England are producing a LOT of opportunities to give us that many tries despite or inability to finish or our finishing isn't that bad. You can't claim we are making practically no opportunities and then failing to finish those that we do because then we would have been competing for the wooden spoon.

As I said, England are not a bad attacking side, they are a bad finishing side.
 
Big Ewis said:
If you have good memory of the 6N, in all of England's games they'd had strong opportunities where they fail to deliver the punch for 5 points:
- Against France they managed a score I have no clue how Mike Brown got it over 4 Frenchmen, and the second try was nice. 2 tries
- Against Scotland they dominated big time but only managed a couple of tries, one off the lineout, easiest try they got all tournaments. 2 tries
- Against Ireland, they get 1 try.
- Against Wales, again, they widely dominated their opponents and had lots of chances but. 2 tries (one of which was that Danny Care bastardly sneaky thing)

Now, against Italy, there's not much to take away from that at all. The only thing we know, is that Italy degraded progressively throughout the tournament. Good, quite good in Cardiff. Mediocre in France. Alright vs Scotland. Bad in Ireland. And "we just took 50 at home" bad vs England. That's worthy of being thrown out of the 6N, taking 50 at home+wooden spoon. Tier 2 shiit right there.

And right now, the case explained above of 'England in NZ continuing to struggle finishing off plays'. Of course, it's no easy task to score over there, but the examples have been legion in these past two tests, and England really could've done better easily. They tend to rush it, or flatout make the wrong decision.

I'd say the overall report for 2014 isn't fantastic. And I say it's clearly their Achilles' Heel still atm.

That is all.
Click to expand...

that's all very well, and i don't necessarily disagree with you, but you haven't answered my question about what constitutes an attacking team?

I think there is a difference between attacking with intent and finishing. Fiji and Samoa are both attacking minded teams yet against the big boys fail to take chances.

Do England lack precision? yes, like most NH teams there is a discrepancy between the opportunities they create and the correct exploitation of them. But that doesn't make them a bad attacking side, or a stale boring side.
 
Check this out: France's most enormous issue has been finishing plays too. The difference is they have no structure and their guys individually have to take initiative and go by themselves, so England have looked more organized creating the chances. But I've been saying for the past year how bad France have been on attack, because I don't give a fk about creation vs finishing, it's all the same in the end. That's nitpicking, and you know it. If you really want to play that game, yes, England create opportunities. There, now that's out of the way, you must concede they've got serious issues finishing off plays once and for all, which clearly omits the possibility of calling them a "good attacking side".
Like, who gives a flying fk atm if a team produces chances, France (as an example) have consistently camped in the opposition 22 and dominated the territory/possession stats and made crazy meters run, clean breaks and defender beaten stats in lots of their games, but who gives a flying fk that Bastareaud makes a huge break, Fofana, Huget, Dulin, Picamoles, all these guys constantly make breaks, but who gives a flying fk if there's never (too rarely) a 7 pointer at the end of that ?
Take the game against Tonga, we looked like our guys had played for the first time ever together, but still put 40 past them and 4 tries, but we still weren't a good attacking side. We scored 9 tries ourselves in the 6N, but we're still a shiitty attacking side.

Take NZ in all 4 times we faced them in 2013: they created very little opportunity to score, but almost every time they got one, they went all the way. As opposed to France that were often in their 22 but scored only 2 tries in 4 test matches.
There's a very prominent primacy of 'actually scoring' vs 'being close to score', and no discussion could be held there. If you'd actually watched NZ FRA Test 2 last year, especially on the stat sheet, you never would've thought that game ended up being a 30-0.

So yes, yes, sure, if you like I'll say it again, no worries: England create quite a good number of chances. But, *AGAIN*, there's no way a team that has botched that many opportunities could be called a "good attacking side". Don't make me make a "butchered chances" compilation for 2014, please. They're not there yet, and in fact may not get there, we just don't know atm.
 
You're clearly not reading Ewis. Both myself and GN10 have admitted more than once that England can't finish yet you are still going "you must admit they can't finish". We HAVE, we've been spending all this time arguing that finishing is not the only criteria of a good attacking side. You're the one who was stubbornly refusing to budge.
 
ragerancher said:
You're clearly not reading Ewis. Both myself and GN10 have admitted more than once that England can't finish yet you are still going "you must admit they can't finish". We HAVE, we've been spending all this time arguing that finishing is not the only criteria of a good attacking side. You're the one who was stubbornly refusing to budge.
Click to expand...

dude....seriously............stop it and just read what I've posted. Stop avoiding the points I make, for God's sake, stop focusing on the little things and take the bulk of the arguments and comment on that.
This discussion is over anyways I think, not that I'm looking to have the last word, but srsly what more is there to say ?
 
oh thank God n10, you've removed that awful signature...but did you really have to put it in all-capital again there ?!!
 
dude, you're right it is a bit understated, I should have done it like this:

WHAT IS THE CAPTAIN DOING? WHAT IS THE CAPTAIN DOING?
 
ooooooooooooooohhhh, you're askin' for it arentcha there boy !!!! :lol: Yar goin' down the wrong road with this here, lemme tell ya son !!!
 
Big Ewis said:
ooooooooooooooohhhh, you're askin' for it arentcha there boy !!!! :lol: Yar goin' down the wrong road with this here, lemme tell ya son !!!
Click to expand...
hey ewis my dad is bigger than yours ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

miccloarch
Classic Rugby
Replies
14
Views
630
AlRums
AlRums
T
Super Rugby Movement 2025
Replies
1
Views
126
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
miccloarch
Classic Rugby: Wales
Replies
0
Views
190
miccloarch
miccloarch
piriweepu
Rugby Union records database
Replies
1
Views
202
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
miccloarch
Classic Rugby: All Blacks
Replies
0
Views
173
miccloarch
miccloarch

Latest posts

Top